Thomas: Growing independence from both parties

In his 2007 book, “The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800,” historian Jay Winik writes that among Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, none “believed in political parties, which they feared would lead to ‘rage,’ ‘dissolution,’ and eventual ‘ruin’ of the republic...”

The latest poll from the Pew Research Center, “Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years,” seems to indicate that the American people have come around to their way of thinking.

The poll, writes The New York Times, found that “the share of self-identified Republicans has declined over the last two decades to about 24 percent of the country, from about 31 percent. The share of Democrats has stayed about steady — to 32 percent, from 33 percent — while the share of independents has risen to 38 percent, from 29 percent.”

The poll also indicates that the parties “appear to have lost some of the people who were closer to the middle of the political spectrum and retained those closer to the extremes.”

In short, more Americans are ditching the big two political parties, leaving hardliners behind. The result? Political stagnation. So much for well-reasoned debate and consensus. So much for moving the country forward.

What appears to frustrate voters is that not enough members of either party seem capable, or interested, in solving problems. Instead, their primary concern appears to be achieving and holding onto power and the perks of office.

A major reason for government’s inability to repair its own dysfunction is that we are still living off the inertia of government’s central role during the Great Depression, and later “The Great Society” in which government presented itself as everyone’s savior.

“A Time for Governing: Policy Solutions from the Pages of National Affairs,” a new book compiled by the quarterly journal, National Affairs, contains essays that address credible solutions.

In his essay “Beyond the Welfare State,” National Affairs editor Yuval Levin addresses the heart of the problem: “Human societies do not work by obeying orderly commands from central managers, however well-meaning; they work through the erratic interplay of individual and, even more, of familial and communal decisions answering locally felt desires and needs.” He adds, “In our everyday experience, the bureaucratic state presents itself not as a benevolent provider and protector, but as a corpulent behemoth — flabby, slow and expressionless... Unresponsive ineptitude is not merely an annoyance. The sluggishness of the welfare state drains it of its moral force.”

It will take more than the election of a new president and Congress to fix this. It will require a new way of thinking.